[HN Gopher] ChatGPT Pro now starts at $100/month
___________________________________________________________________
ChatGPT Pro now starts at $100/month
Author : strongpigeon
Score : 181 points
Date : 2026-04-09 18:09 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (chatgpt.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (chatgpt.com)
| selectively wrote:
| Price drops are nice. Unfortunately, the quality differential
| versus the competitor is night and day.
|
| And everyone serious uses the API rate billing anyway.
| hyperionultra wrote:
| Disagree. I use codex extensively. It just works so well with
| vscode and python. Claude with ridiculous limits - thanks no.
| For some even xAI is good fit.
| randomNumber7 wrote:
| > For some even xAI is good fit.
|
| Grok makes sense if you want s.th. less censored that is not
| biased towards woke ideology.
|
| I don't see how this matters for coding though. I only use it
| to give me a summary of recent news (so I don't have to
| actually read the bs newspapers and X posts myself).
| satvikpendem wrote:
| I prefer and use 5.4 over Opus, it's simply better, faster, and
| doesn't glaze me like Claude models want to do for some reason.
| nilkn wrote:
| This take is out-of-date by months (which is an eternity in
| this space). Codex today has caught up and is very much on par
| with CC.
| aerhardt wrote:
| > the quality differential versus the competitor is night and
| day.
|
| This myth about the inferiority of ChatGPT and Codex is
| becoming a meme.
|
| I have active subscriptions to both. I am throwing at Codex all
| kinds of data engineering, web development and machine learning
| problems, have been working on non-tech tasks in the "Karpathy
| Obsidian Wiki" [1] style before he posted about it.
|
| Not only does Codex crush Claude on cost, it's also
| significantly better at adherence and overall quality. Claude
| is there on my Mac, gathering dust, to the point I am thinking
| of not renewing the sub.
|
| There are plenty of fellow HNers here who feel the same from
| what I read in the flamewars. I suspect none of us really has a
| horse in this race and many are half-competent (in other
| threads, they mention they do things like embedded programming,
| distributed DL systems, etc.)
|
| I'm starting to suspect a vast majority of people pushing the
| narrative that Claude is vastly better haven't even tried the
| 5.3 / 5.4 models and are doing it out of sheer tribalism.
|
| [1]
| https://gist.github.com/karpathy/442a6bf555914893e9891c11519...
| selectively wrote:
| I have access to effectively infinite API tokens for all
| models from Anthropic as well as OpenAI. The differential in
| performance in complex tasks is vast and strongly in favor of
| Opus, in my experience. I do not use the official harnesses
| for either model, though - as they are not my taste.
|
| Codex is closer to my taste, as it is at least a native app
| and not typescript slop. But the model is just not up to
| snuff.
| xur17 wrote:
| Any idea way "5x or 20x more usage" means?
| reed1234 wrote:
| If you pay 200 you get 20x
| recursive wrote:
| The price is $100 according to this post. Where is there an
| option for $200?
| AstroBen wrote:
| seems like this $100 replaced the $200 plan
|
| So.. cheaper?
| readitalready wrote:
| No, the same $200 plan is still there. They hid it behind
| the $100 click-through.
|
| This just adds a $100 plan that's 1/4 the usage of the
| $200 plan..
| orphea wrote:
| You choose on checkout. There it says
| Plan details 5x more usage than Plus
| 20x more usage than Plus $120/month
| $200/month
| recursive wrote:
| So curious that the cost in the comparison is just a flat
| $100, not "$100 or $200" and yet the usage has the "or".
| Surely just a lapse in copy editing.
| AstroBen wrote:
| Surely they weren't trying to be deceptive... surely.
| conradkay wrote:
| Anthropic is the exact same way, I think they're just
| trying to avoid having 5 different subscription tiers
| visible. Probably needing 20x is very niche
| layer8 wrote:
| It states " _From_ $100". Standard pricing speak.
| recursive wrote:
| Unfortunately also standard pricing speak to make the
| "From" 20% the font size and decreased contrast. Maybe
| they learned it from car marketing.
| recursive wrote:
| I assume it means 5x if they get to choose. They're the ones
| enforcing the limits.
| josh_p wrote:
| What's the difference between the two Pro plans?
|
| Both Pro plans include the same core capabilities. The main
| difference is usage allowance: Pro $100 unlocks 5x higher usage
| than Plus (and 10x Codex usage vs. Plus for a limited time),
| while Pro $200 unlocks 20x usage than Plus.
|
| From their faq
| terramex wrote:
| 5x more usage than in Plus is 100$
|
| 20x more usage than in Plus is 200$
|
| I see this when I try to upgrade my Plus subscription.
| gib444 wrote:
| Exactly! :)
| rvz wrote:
| Suppose you enter a casino and the owner welcomes you in and
| sees that you are a frequent loyal spender customer (with the
| amount of tokens you are spending a month) with an existing
| membership.
|
| With this new VIP membership that comes with 5x or 20x usage,
| if you spend $100 you get 5x. $200 you get 20x and you get to
| spin the wheel and use the slot machines unlimited times even
| at peak hours more than most without _any_ restrictions, 24 /7,
| no waiting for hours with priority.
|
| So spend more to get more abundance and more simultaneous spins
| at the wheel.
|
| Except if you're trying to abuse the slot machines themselves
| or sharing or reselling your membership to other customers who
| want a spin at the roulette wheel; but were previously banned.
| [0]
|
| [0] https://help.openai.com/en/articles/9793128-about-chatgpt-
| pr...
| Archerlm wrote:
| just a rumor, but i heard altman was adding a timer which
| required the R&D dept. to triple
| throwatdem12311 wrote:
| I heard it'll take about a year. Timers are a hard problem to
| solve.
| sassymuffinz wrote:
| While they work on getting it to tell the time they'll just
| be over there listing targets for military strikes.
| 2001zhaozhao wrote:
| The title is misleading. The only thing they seem to have done
| was add a $100 plan identical to Claude's, which gives 5x usage
| of ChatGPT Plus. There is still a $200 plan that gives 20x usage.
| selectively wrote:
| Oh. Yikes.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| That is not the "only" thing: You get access to GPT-5.4 pro.
| giwook wrote:
| Just to clarify, one does not get access to the pro model on
| the Pro plan?
| carbocation wrote:
| The $20 Plus plan still exists, and does not give access to
| the pro model.
|
| The $200 Pro plan still exists, and _does_ give access to
| the pro model.
|
| What is new is a $100 Pro plan that _does_ give access to
| the pro model, with lower usage limits than the $200 Pro
| plan.
| irishcoffee wrote:
| So, reading the tea leaves, they're either losing
| subscribers for the $200 plan, or they're not following
| the same hockey stick path of growth they thought they
| were... maybe?
|
| Edit: I wonder if this is actually compute-bound as the
| impetus
| alyxya wrote:
| Plenty of people wanted to spend more than $20 but less
| than $200 for a plan. It's long overdue IMO.
| tedsanders wrote:
| Nope, it's just that a lot of people (especially those
| using Codex) asked us for a medium-sized $100 plan. $20
| felt too restrictive and $200 felt like a big jump.
|
| Pricing strategy is always a bit of an art, without a
| perfect optimum for everyone:
|
| - pay-per-token makes every query feel stressful
|
| - a single plan overcharges light users and annoyingly
| blocks heavy users
|
| - a zillion plans are confusing / annoying to navigate
| and change
|
| This change mostly just adds a medium-sized plan for
| people doing medium-sized amounts of work. People were
| asking for this, and we're happy to deliver.
|
| (I work at OpenAI.)
| irishcoffee wrote:
| Thanks for the response. I tried to phrase my
| postulations as just that, I didn't intend to be an
| accusatory.
|
| You like the job? How's the day-to-day go? Yanking
| tickets or more organic?
| tedsanders wrote:
| All good, I interpreted it as postulation and not
| accusation. :)
|
| I do like the job! Much more organic than yanking
| tickets, though I'm on the model training side of things,
| rather than product side. Always a balance between short-
| term sprints patching bad behaviors for the next model vs
| long-term investments in infra and science that make
| future patches unnecessary or at least easier. Sometimes
| the negative press gets to me a bit (it's a very
| different feeling than 2022 or 2023), but my goal is just
| to make the most useful product I can for people. It's
| been wild how much Codex has already changed my day-to-
| day work, I'm so curious to see what it looks like in
| 2030 or 2040.
| dimmke wrote:
| This is still worse than Anthropic's right? Because you
| get access to their top model even at the $20 price point
| Tiberium wrote:
| It's not worse, Anthropic simply has no equivalent model
| (if you don't consider Mythos) of GPT 5.4 Pro. Google
| does though: Gemini 3.1 Deep Think.
|
| GPT 5.4 Pro is extremely slow but thorough, so it's not
| meant for the usual agentic work, rather for research or
| solving hard bugs/math problems when you provide it all
| the context.
| giwook wrote:
| I'm genuinely asking, when you say Gemini 3.1 DT is an
| equivalent model of GPT 5.4 Pro, is there a specific
| benchmark/comparison you're referring to or is this more
| anecdotal?
|
| And do you mean to say that you don't really use GPT 5.4
| Pro unless it's for a hard bug? Curious which models you
| use for system design/architecture/planning vs execution
| of a plan/design.
|
| TIA! I'm still trying to figure out an optimal system for
| leveraging all of the LLMs available to us as I've just
| been throwing 100% of my work at Claude Code in recent
| months but would like to branch out.
| simianwords wrote:
| Pro and DT model are equivalents because
|
| - internally same architecture of best of N
|
| - not available in the code harness like Codex, only in
| the UI (gpt has API)
|
| - GPT-5.4 pro is extremely expensive: $30.00 input vs
| $180.00 output
|
| - both DT and Pro are really good at solving math
| problems
| patates wrote:
| Plus plan doesn't get the pro model, which is (AFAICT) the
| same 5.4 model but thinks like _a lot_.
| jgalt212 wrote:
| You're trying to make words mean what we all think they
| mean. Stop foisting your Textualism upon us!
| taoh wrote:
| Does GPT-5.4 pro give a much better result in some
| circumstances? What're their typical uses in your experience?
| dyauspitr wrote:
| If you want it to deeply research something pro is great. I
| had a problem I just couldn't find with my oven so I gave
| it a lot of information and it went off on its own for
| about 2 hours and then gave me what I needed to fix the
| problem (fan was turning off too quickly which was causing
| the panel to overheat). I have no idea how it figured it
| out and I couldn't find anything after hours of googling so
| it was very impressive. I even went and googled for it once
| I knew what the problem was and I still couldn't find the
| solution that it came up with.
| taoh wrote:
| Thanks for sharing this experience. Does it cost a lot of
| token in the deep analysis - which will make the $100
| plan much quicker to drain all budgets.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| I think it's going to be very hard to blow through your
| tokens just using chat. I mostly bought the plan so I
| could use Codex and on the $200 a month plan I've
| basically been using it 15 hours a day almost nonstop and
| I don't run out of tokens for the week.
| J_Shelby_J wrote:
| Will they fix the pro model so it actually finishes the last
| step instead of hanging for 10-20m doing nothing?
|
| It's only use case now is when you can walk away for an hour.
| strongpigeon wrote:
| You're right. I missed the " _From_ $100". Edited title.
| exitb wrote:
| Notably, up until now Pro had 6x usage of Plus. So the title is
| only slightly misleading.
|
| On the other hand, the benchmark of Plus usage seems to be to
| be all over the place, so it's difficult to say now how does
| the usage compare to the old Pro.
| rossant wrote:
| How much was it before?
| coreyburnsdev wrote:
| $20 or $200 plan, now we have a middle plan.
| gmig wrote:
| This is an additional offering to the existing plan.
|
| 5x=$100 20x=$200
| satvikpendem wrote:
| The era of subsidization is over, it seems.
|
| For my money, on the code side at least, GitHub Copilot on VSCode
| is still the most cost effective option, 10 bucks for 300
| requests gets me all I need, especially when I use OpenAI models
| which are counted as 1x vs Opus which is 3x. I've stopped using
| all other tools like Claude Code etc.
| giwook wrote:
| I use both GH Copilot as well as CC extensively and it does
| seem more economical, though I wonder how long this will last
| as I imagine Github has also been subsidizing LLM usage
| extensively.
|
| FWIW it feels like GH Copilot is a cheaper version of
| OpenRouter but with trade-offs like being locked into VSCode
| and the Microsoft ecosystem overall. I already use VSCode
| though and otherwise I don't see much downside to using GH
| Copilot outside of that.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| I'm hopeful because Microsoft already has a partnership and
| owns much of OpenAI so can get their models at cost to host
| on Azure with they already do, so they can pass on the
| savings to the user. This is why Opus is 3x as expensive in
| Copilot, because Microsoft needs to buy API usage from
| Anthropic directly.
| treesknees wrote:
| I don't think it's API costs. Their Sonnet 4.6 is just 1x
| premium request which matches the 1x cost of the various
| GPT Codex models.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Sonnet is the worse model though, therefore it's expected
| that it is cheaper, the comparison would be Opus and GPT.
| That Anthropic's worse model is the same request cost as
| the best OpenAI model is what I mean when talking about
| Microsoft flexing their partnership.
| treesknees wrote:
| You're not locked into vscode. There are plugins for other
| IDEs, and a 'copilot' cli tool very similar to Claude Code's
| cli tool.
|
| I also wouldn't say you're locked into Microsoft's ecosystem.
| At work we just have skills that allow for interaction with
| Bitbucket and other internal tooling. You're not forced to
| use GitHub at all.
| sassymuffinz wrote:
| You could use something like [https://opencode.ai](OpenCode)
| which supports integration with Copilot.
| lossyalgo wrote:
| > but with trade-offs like being locked into VSCode and the
| Microsoft ecosystem overall
|
| You can use GH Copilot with most of Jetbrains IDEs.
| WithinReason wrote:
| You can use copilot models from OpenCode:
|
| https://github.blog/changelog/2026-01-16-github-copilot-
| now-...
| sassymuffinz wrote:
| I tried Claude Code for a week straight recently to see what
| all the hype was about and while it pumped out a bunch of
| reasonable looking code and features I ended up feeling
| completely disconnected from my codebase and uncomfortable.
|
| Cancelled the plan I had with them and happily went back to
| just coding like normal in VSCode with occasional dips into
| Copilot when a need arose or for rubber ducking and planning.
| Feels much better as I'm in full control and not trusting the
| magic black box to get it right or getting fatigue from reading
| thousands of lines of generated code.
|
| Anyone who says they're able to review thousands of lines
| effectively that Claude might slop out in a day are lying to
| themselves.
| torben-friis wrote:
| >Anyone who says they're able to review thousands of lines
| effectively that Claude might slop out in a day are lying to
| themselves.
|
| The amount you can review before burning out is now the
| reasonable limit, for the same reason that a car is supposed
| to stay at the speed you can handle and not the max speed of
| the engine.
|
| Of course, many people are secretly skipping reviews and some
| dare to publicly advocate for getting rid of them entirely.
| sassymuffinz wrote:
| > For the same reason that a car is supposed to stay at the
| speed you can handle and not the max speed of the engine.
|
| As we know with driving, sensible drivers stick to the
| speed limit most of the time, but there's a good percentage
| of knuckle draggers who just love speeding, some people get
| drunk, some they just drive the wrong way down the highway
| entirely. Either way it's usually the sensible people who
| end up suffering.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| > _The amount you can review before burning out is now the
| reasonable limit_
|
| I realized this is the crux of our moment, because a
| variant of Amdahl's law applies to AI code gen.
|
| {time gained} = {time saved via gen AI} - {time spent in
| human review}
|
| There's no way that results in a positive number with 100%
| human review coverage, which means that human review
| coverage is headed to < 100% (ideally as low as possible).
| torben-friis wrote:
| I'm not sure that's as certain, I think just by virtue or
| LLMs being better copypasting/integrated stackoverflow
| you can get a speed boost (prompts like "generate a
| similar test to this one checking condition X").
|
| The question is whether humans can sensibly judge the
| break even point and not generate faster than that. It's
| very easy to get lost in the woods and suddenly have a
| bunch of generated stuff you no longer grok.
| coreyburnsdev wrote:
| why not just use it to review your codebase/commits/prs? you
| don't have to let it write a bunch of code for you
| neccessarily.
| sassymuffinz wrote:
| That's my point - it's great as a tool to talk something
| through or rubber duck it, but as soon as you just let it
| loose to slop out thousands of lines a day and never read
| them all you're really doing is filling your base with
| thousands of lines of technical debt.
| bossyTeacher wrote:
| I think most people doing what is now called agentic
| development, aren't following most established dev
| methodologies and are to a great extent playing it by vibe.
|
| The codebase disconnect is real.
|
| We are like blue collar workers that need to hit the gym to
| maintain the body that our cavemen ancestors could maintain
| by doing their daily duties.
|
| Codebase gym sessions might become a thing.
| bluegatty wrote:
| I don't like calling a posture 'ignorant' , but I think
| that's what we have here. I don't mean that as an insult.
|
| It's likely you didn't learn how to use the tool properly,
| and I'd suggest 'trying again' because not using AI soon will
| be tantamount to digging holes with shovels instead of using
| construction equipment. Yes, we still need our 'core skill's
| but, we're not going to be able to live without the leverage
| of AI.
|
| Yes - AI can generate slop, and probably too many Engineers
| do that.
|
| Yes - you can 'feel a loss of control' but that's where you
| have to find your comfort zone.
|
| It's generally a bad idea to produce 'huge amounts of code' -
| unless it's perfectly consistent with a design, and he
| architecture is derived from well-known conventions.
|
| Start by using it as an 'assistant' aka research, fill in all
| the extra bits, and get your testing going.
|
| You'll probably want to guide the architecture, and at least
| keep an eye on the test code.
|
| Then it's a matter of how much further 'up' you can go,
|
| There are few situations in which we should be 'accepting'
| large amounts of code, but some of it can be reviewed
| quickly.
|
| The AI, already now in 2026 can write better code than you at
| the algorithmic level - it will be tight, clean, 'by the
| book' and far lesss likley to have erros.
|
| It fails at the architectural and modular level still, that
| will probably change.
|
| The AI 'makes a clean cut' in the wood, tighter to the line
| than any carpenter could - like a power tool.
|
| A carpenter that does not use power tools is an 'artisnal
| craft person' , not really building functional things.
|
| This is the era of motor cars, there is really no option - I
| don't say that because I'm pro or anti anything, AI is often
| way over-hyped - that's something else entirely.
|
| It's like the web / cloud etc. it's just 'imminent'.
|
| So try again, experiment, stay open minded.
| sassymuffinz wrote:
| Like I said I still use Copilot as needed, I just don't
| trust Claude to go off on its own and generate a mountain
| of technical debt that I can't 100% trust.
|
| To use your own analogy, there's plenty of carpenters still
| around for when someone needs something doing properly and
| bespoke, even though we can all go to Ikea, or any other
| flat pack furniture company, to get wobbly furniture
| cheaply at any time.
|
| I'd rather be the last carpenter charging a liveable wage,
| working on interesting problems for clients who appreciate
| a human touch than just pumping out mountains of slop to
| keep up with the broligarchy. If that makes me ignorant
| that's fine, but I'll be happily enjoying the craft while
| you're worrying about your metrics.
| bluegatty wrote:
| You're offering to deliver parcels by horse - thinking
| that somehow your 'delivering is better because it's more
| natural' and that your customers will appreciate it, over
| the 'smog' that the cars create.
|
| Or in other words - 'non existent'.
|
| It is arrogant and luddite to suggest that 'using AI is
| not doing it properly' or that anyone will care.
|
| They care that it's done well - that's it.
|
| FYI, the code that AI produces is probably better than
| what you produce - at least a functional level.
|
| 'Artisanility' is worthless in 'code' - there are no
| 'winding staircases' for us to custom build, as a master
| carpenter would.
|
| Where you can continue to 'write code by hand' is for
| very arcane, things, but even then you're still going to
| have to use AI for a lot of things in support of that.
|
| So if you want to get into compiler design - sure.
|
| But still - without mastery of AI, you'll be left behind.
|
| At least with horses, there's a naturalist component,
| with 'code' - nobody cares at all. There's zero interest
| in it, there's not 'organic' angle to sell.
| eudamoniac wrote:
| I really don't understand why you people always say these
| things so matter of factly. I'd put a lot of money (and
| do, in the markets) on you being wrong. I'm pretty sure
| in ten years I will not have a problem keeping a software
| job without using AI.
| sassymuffinz wrote:
| Maybe it's because of the environment they work in or
| their understanding of other people because of the
| business they're in.
|
| Your average 50 year old business owner doesn't
| understand AI at all and doesn't care to know, he's too
| busy thinking about getting a new order for 5000 widgets
| that he invented. What he needs is a website with
| inventory management, some sort of email marketing
| software, some sort of CRM, maybe a dashboard or
| something. What he wants to do is pick up the phone to
| someone and get them to take care of it for a reasonable
| price.
|
| AI is coming for programmers with no social skills, but
| it isn't coming for the human relationship side of the
| business where you need to have a few meetings to work
| out what they want to achieve, build a plan that works
| long term, have a call with other third parties or their
| vendors etc to alleviate pain points and then build a
| project around the business needs that won't crash every
| five minutes and leak their internal information because
| Claude decided security was optional.
|
| Half my job is understanding what they need and then
| instead of accepting their original scope, building a
| brand new scope in collaboration with them to fit the
| business needs long term. If one of these guys just wants
| to plow the original scope into Claude and let it rip
| then the customer isn't getting what they need.
| sassymuffinz wrote:
| Maybe in your industry but in mine working with small and
| medium businesses they value reliability above everything
| else. They don't give a shit whether you use AI or not as
| long as it's stable and works and are prepared to pay a
| premium for someone who knows what they're doing.
|
| If you want to have a race to the bottom and be Sam
| Altman's lap dog, that your business.
| bitwize wrote:
| No one is paying a liveable wage for purely human-
| authored code anymore. This _is_ the job now, and you are
| far more effective with these tools than without. If you
| still have an issue with their output, that 's a PEBKAC
| and you need to upskill and/or attitude adjust. Stop
| thinking like a programmer and start thinking like a
| business person. Delegate! It doesn't _matter_ if the
| machine wrote code just the way you would have, only that
| it gets you closer to the goal, and the machine can help
| with vetting and assuring that it does. If you choose to
| remain stubborn and closed-minded, what you will find is
| that clients will not care about the "human touch" in
| their code, and some AI-assisted consultant will come
| along and deliver more for less money, drinking your
| _entire_ fucking milkshake.
|
| In 2005, Tim Bryce wrote that programmers were by and
| large a lazy, discipline-averse lot who are of average
| intelligence at best but get very precious about their
| "craft", not realizing that it's only a small part of a
| greater whole and it's the business people who drive
| actual value in a company. AI is proving him 100%
| correct.
| sassymuffinz wrote:
| Interesting - I'm still making a very liveable wage
| building projects for small and medium companies, because
| they don't know their AI from their elbow and don't want
| to know, they have their own business to run.
|
| You forget that templates and off the shelf SAAS products
| have been around forever and yet I'm still here getting
| work because there's always a catch and it always shits
| the bed.
|
| You mention that I must have a user/skill issue because
| the AI can't be trusted, I had to explain multiple times
| to Claude during my work that it had left a very obvious
| security hole in a controller and in a different policy.
| Stop pretending it's some sort of super intelligence,
| they can't even do a timer bro and OpenAI is laughing at
| you while taking your money.
| eudamoniac wrote:
| This sort of angry post, with many demands "attitude
| adjust" "delegate" and invectives "close-minded" "lazy"
| never appeared for any other technology shift. React devs
| never posted like this about jQuery devs. Mobile app devs
| never posted like this about mobile web devs. Yet tons of
| AI users post like this about non-AI-using devs.
|
| Is it some kind of fear or doubt? It's a strange
| phenomenon.
|
| Like for example I strongly believe Typescript is better
| than Javascript and needs to be used instead for any
| serious project. But if someone says they don't like it,
| I cannot imagine myself writing a post like yours about
| it. First of all I don't care what they use, but second
| of all if I really wanted to convince them it would not
| look anything like this. Your post and many like it reads
| like anger and condescension and incredulity.
| sassymuffinz wrote:
| He's drunk the kool aid and forgotten that some of us
| have been working in this industry for decades and got
| along just fine without AI, while he's busy debugging his
| technical debt and getting sued for leaking customer data
| I'll just be over here quietly enjoying coding for
| customers who like dealing with human beings and not
| black box robots.
| deadbabe wrote:
| Not over yet. More hikes will come. It will reach $1000.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| That's what I said by subsidization being over.
| operatingthetan wrote:
| The subsidization being "over" would mean we are paying
| their actual cost or more.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| I see what you mean, I misread your initial reply.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Can you expand what you mean by "subsidization being over"
| in terms of the plan prices?
|
| - Plus is still the same $20
|
| - 20x Pro is still the same $200
|
| - This is a new 5x tier is $100
|
| https://help.openai.com/en/articles/9793128-what-is-
| chatgpt-... is probably a better direct comparison of the 3
| satvikpendem wrote:
| They're trying to slowly move up market. I assume soon
| the $20 will get its own restrictions in the future
| (and/or ads) to get people to pay $100.
| zamadatix wrote:
| The same could have been claimed in 2024 when they
| introduced the $200 Pro plan. Nothing is over yet just
| because of what could possibly happen next.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Yes, and now they (will) have ads in the lower tiers and
| eventually will add them in higher tiers as well. It's no
| different to Netflix's methods. Therefore the statement
| would have been proven right if it were claimed back
| then.
| zamadatix wrote:
| But these are, again, additional tiers.
|
| You can't just say because they've added more things the
| old things are over - the old things actually have to go
| away first. Eventually they may get there (or not). It
| may be another few years (or not). Nothing is actually
| now over though any more than it was now over in 2024.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Additional tiers to get people to move up as they
| enshittify the lower tiers. We already see it in other
| companies as well as OpenAI themselves so my inference is
| based on that, not to wait and see until they do indeed
| enshittify it.
| conradkay wrote:
| Codex had 2x usage until April 1, I think when that ended
| there were a lot more people (like myself) who were fine
| on $20 but now want more usage
| dismalaf wrote:
| > The era of subsidization is over
|
| Of course it is. Returns are diminishing, AGI isn't happening
| with current techniques but it is good enough to sell, so it's
| time to monetize. I just got an email from OpenAI as well about
| ads in their free tier (I signed up once out of curiosity).
| rvz wrote:
| > AGI isn't happening with current techniques but it is good
| enough to sell, so it's time to monetize.
|
| Or perhaps it was a scam in the first place for an IPO.
| bluegatty wrote:
| Subsidization is not nearly over
|
| It's true AGI is 'not happening' but it doesn't matter.
|
| Demand for AI is explosive, sales are skyrocketing.
|
| We have another 5-8 years of this crazy investment stuff.
|
| Altman will step aside before they turn into a 'normal
| company'.
|
| Like they did at Uber.
| creddit wrote:
| Pro used to be $200.
| KellyCriterion wrote:
| OT:
|
| In general I view VS Code and VS.NET Community + SQL Server
| free universe as the most effective option :) I think these
| products are great actually.
| varispeed wrote:
| What is the difference between Pro and normal mode apart from the
| fact the Pro takes ages to finish? I see not much difference in
| output quality.
| MallocVoidstar wrote:
| https://x.com/OpenAI/status/2042296046009626989
|
| >Our existing $200 Pro tier still remains our highest usage
| option.
| flextheruler wrote:
| Tell me you're losing market share to competitors without telling
| me you're losing market share to competitors
| patates wrote:
| 5.4, in my own testing, was almost always ahead of Opus 4.6 for
| reviews and planning. I'm on plus plan on openai, so I couldn't
| test it so deeply. Anyone who had more experience on both could
| perhaps chime in? Pros/cons compared to Opus? I'm invested in
| Claude ecosystem but the recent quality and session limits
| decrease have me on the edge.
| giwook wrote:
| Do you mind elaborating on your experience here?
|
| Just curious as I've often heard that Claude was superior for
| planning/architecture work while ChatGPT was superior for
| actual implementation and finding bugs.
| patates wrote:
| Claude makes more detailed plans that seem better if you just
| skim them, but when analyzed, has a lot of errors, usually.
|
| It compensates for most during implementation if you make it
| use TDD by using superpower et al, or just telling it to do
| so.
|
| GPT 5.4 makes more simple plans (compared to superpowers - a
| plugin from the official claude plugin marketplace - not the
| plan mode), but can better fill the details while
| implementing.
|
| Plan mode in Claude Code got much better in the last months,
| but the lacking details cannot be compensated by the model
| during the implementation.
|
| So my workflow has been:
|
| Make claude plan with superpowers:brainstorm, review the
| spec, make updates, give the spec to gpt, usually to witness
| grave errors found by gpt, spec gets updates, another manual
| review, (many iterations later), final spec is written, write
| the plan, gpt finds mind boggling errors, (many iterations
| later), claude agent swarm implements, gpt finds even more
| errors, I find errors, fix fix fix, manual code review and
| red tests from me, tests get fixed (many iterations later)
| finally something usable with stylistic issues at most (human
| opinion)!
|
| This happens with the most complex features that'd be a
| nightmare to implement even for the most experienced
| programmers of course. For basic things, most SOTA modals can
| one-shot anyway.
| giwook wrote:
| Interesting. Have you ever had Claude re-review its plan
| after having it draft the original plan? Or do you give it
| to GPT right away to review?
|
| Just curious as I'm trying to branch out from using Claude
| for everything, and I've been following a somewhat similar
| workflow to yours, except just having Claude review and re-
| review its plan (sometimes using different roles, e.g.
| system architect vs SWE vs QA eng) and it will similarly
| identify issues that it missed originally.
|
| But now I'm curious to try this while weaving in more GPT.
| azuanrb wrote:
| Same for me. I'm on $20 plan for both and I use them both
| interchangeably. Similar "intelligence" imo. Just different way
| of doing things, that's all. But Claude is getting worse in
| terms of token usage so I've cancelled my plan last month.
| conradkay wrote:
| Yeah it's probably a bit better overall. 5.4 is a month newer
| than Opus 4.6
|
| My guess is that 5.5 will come out soon and be significantly
| better so you'd want to be using Codex then, but then when Opus
| 5 comes out probably back to claude code
|
| Also 5.4 has fast mode, and higher usage limits since it's
| cheaper
| psadauskas wrote:
| I use opencode, so can toggle between Claude and Codex fairly
| easily, and do so whenever one of them is having problems
| (until yesterday, that is, when Claude blocked opencode for
| good, and I cancelled my account). This means I'm using the
| same prompts and instructions for both.
|
| Personally, it seems like I have to redirect Opus/Sonnet much
| less often. GPT felt pretty "dense", it was more likely to
| ignore earlier instructions in the session, I had to remind it
| more often, and when I reviewed the code it produced I had to
| make more corrections that seemed obvious.
|
| Entirely subjective, but I also find I prefer Claude's
| "personality" to ChatGPT, but I couldn't point to any specific
| differences.
| pseudosavant wrote:
| That has me quite tempted. In general, I stay under the Plus
| limits, but I do watch my consumption. I could use `/fast` mode
| all of the time, with extra high reasoning, and use gpt-5.4-pro
| for especially complex tasks. It wasn't worth 10x the price to me
| before, but 5x is approachable.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| I think you currently can't use pro inside codex, or can you?
| pseudosavant wrote:
| Good question. I'd hope/expect that you could, but that
| doesn't mean much.
| simianwords wrote:
| no you can't use pro in the harness.
| pseudosavant wrote:
| That is disappointing. I find myself mostly using Codex
| these days. ChatGPT still for one off questions/prompts,
| but usually complex problems require context, like files
| and tools I already have on my system, and Codex is way
| better for that.
| codybontecou wrote:
| That's an odd choice. I wonder why.
| righthand wrote:
| This is like the 2010s hosting price wars.
| antirez wrote:
| Very good move. In my experience, for system programming at
| least, GPT 5.4 xhigh is _vastly_ superior to Claude Opus 4.6 max
| effort. I ran many brutal tests, including reconstructing for
| QEMU the SCSI controller (not longer accessible) of a SVSY UNIX
| of the early 90s used in a 386. Side by side, always re-mirroring
| the source trees each time one did a breakthrough in the
| implementation. Well, GPT 5.4 single handed did it all, while
| Opus continued to take wrong paths. The same for my Redis bug
| tracking and development. But 200$ is too much for many people
| (right now, at least: the reality is that if frontier LLMs are
| not democratized, we will end paying like a house rent to a few
| providers), and also while GPT 5.4 is much stronger, it is slower
| and less sharp when the thing to do is simple, so many people
| went for Claude (also because of better marketing and ethical
| concerns, even if my POV is different on that side: both
| companies sell LLM models with similar capabilities and similar
| internal IP protection and so forth, to me they look very similar
| in practical terms). This will surely change things, and many
| people will end with a Claude 5x account + a Codex 5x account I
| bet.
| Tiberium wrote:
| Thanks for confirming my impressions, it's been like 4 months
| now that I've arrived at the same conclusions. GPT models are
| just better at any kind of low-level work: reverse engineering
| including understanding what the decompiled code/assembly does,
| renaming that decompiled code (functions/types), any kind of
| C/C++, way more reliable security research (Opus will find way
| more, but most will turn out to be false positives). I've had
| GPT create non-trivial custom decompilers for me for binaries
| built with specific compilers (it's a much simpler task than
| what IDA Pro/Ghidra are doing but still complex), and modify
| existing Java decompilers.
|
| Regarding speed, I don't use xhigh that often, and surprisingly
| for me GPT 5.4 high is faster than Claude 4.6 Opus high (unless
| you enable fast mode for Opus).
|
| Of course I still use Opus for frontend, for some small
| scripts, and for criticizing GPT's code style, especially in
| Python (getattr).
| antirez wrote:
| In the SCSI controller work I mentioned, a very big part of
| the work was indeed reasoning about assembly code and how
| IRQs and completion of DMAs worked and so forth. Opus, even
| if TOOLS.md had the disassembler and it was asked to use it
| many times, didn't even bothered much. GPT 5.4 did instead a
| very great reverse engineering work, also it was a lot more
| sensible to my high level suggestions, like: work in that way
| to make more isolated progresses and so forth.
| amluto wrote:
| GPT 5.4 is remarkably good at figuring out machine code
| using just binutils. Amusingly, I watched it start
| downloading ghidra, observe that the download was taking a
| while, and then mostly succeed at its assignment with
| objdump :)
| beering wrote:
| Codex also gives you a lot more usage for $20/mon than
| Claude, so there's not also that fear that high or xhigh
| reasoning will eat up all your quota. It really comes down to
| whether you want to try to save some time or not. (I default
| to xhigh because it's still fast enough for me.)
| zozbot234 wrote:
| The $100/mo giving access to GPT Pro (with reduced usage) is a
| nice counter to the just teased Claude Mythos. But GPT 5.4
| xhigh being able to perform that kind of low-level
| reconstruction task is very impressive already.
| Asyne wrote:
| +1 to this, I've found GPT/Codex models consistently stronger
| in engineering tasks (such as debugging complex, cross-systems
| issues, concurrency problems, etc).
|
| I use both OpenAI and Anthropic models, though for different
| purposes, what surprises me is how underrated GPT still feels
| (or, alternatively, how overhyped Anthropic models can be)
| given how capable it is in these scenarios. There also seems to
| be relatively little recognition of this in the broader
| community (like your recent YouTube video). My guess is that
| demand skews toward general codegen rather than the kind of
| deep debugging and systems work where these differences really
| show.
| mediaman wrote:
| It's surprising to me how much LLM "personality" seems to
| matter to people, more than actual capability.
|
| I do turn to Anthropic for ideation and non-tech things. But
| I find little reason to use it over codex for engineering
| tasks. Sometimes for planning, but even there, 5.4 is more
| critical of my questionable ideas, and will often come up
| with simpler ways to do things (especially when prompted),
| which I appreciate.
|
| And I don't do hard-tech things! I've chosen a b2b field
| where I can provide competent products for a niche that is
| underserved and where long term relationships matter, simply
| because I'm not some brilliant engineer who can completely
| reinvent how something is done. I'm not writing kernels or
| complex ML stacks. So I don't really understand what everyone
| is building where they don't see the limits of Opus. Maybe
| small greenfield projects with few users.
| fcarraldo wrote:
| > It's surprising to me how much LLM "personality" seems to
| matter to people, more than actual capability. > I do turn
| to Anthropic for ideation and non-tech things. But I find
| little reason to use it over codex for engineering tasks.
| Sometimes for planning, but even there, 5.4 is more
| critical of my questionable ideas, and will often come up
| with simpler ways to do things (especially when prompted),
| which I appreciate.
|
| Aren't you saying here that the LLM personality matters to
| you, too? Being critical of you is a personality attribute,
| not a capabilities one.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| Not necessarily. Criticism is the analysis, evaluation,
| or judgment of the qualities of something. This is a
| matter of intellectual act. However, you could say that
| being habitually critical _can_ be partly a result of
| "personality" or temperament.
|
| (Of course, strictly speaking, LLMs have neither
| temperament, "personality", nor intellect, but we
| understand these terms are used in an analogical or
| figurative fashion.)
| randomNumber7 wrote:
| > I'm not some brilliant engineer who can completely
| reinvent how something is done
|
| With an honest evaluation of your own capabilities you are
| already far above average. Also its hard to see the insane
| amount of work that often was necessary to invent the
| brilliant stuff and most people can not shit that out
| consistently.
| dvfjsdhgfv wrote:
| I use codex for cleaning after cloude and it always finds so
| many bugs, some of them quite obvious.
| beering wrote:
| Or rather, it's hard to ask everyone to side-by-side compare
| both products on their use cases. So the choice really comes
| down to word-of-mouth even though their use cases may be
| better served by Codex.
| aerhardt wrote:
| I completely agree with you on both the technical and ethical
| reasoning.
|
| Thank you for speaking out. I think it's important that
| reputable engineers like you do so. The Claude gang gaslighting
| is unhinged right now. It would be none of my concern but I
| have to deal with it in the real world - my customers are
| susceptible to these memes. I'm sure others have to deal with
| similar IRL consequences, too.
| bob1029 wrote:
| GPT5.4 with any effort level is scary when you combine it with
| tricks like symbolic recursion. I actually had to _reduce_ the
| effort level to get the model to stop trying to one shot
| everything. I struggled to come up with BS test cases it couldn
| 't dunk in some clever way. Turning down the reasoning effort
| made it explore the space better.
| rolls-reus wrote:
| can you explain what you mean by symbolic recursion tricks in
| this context?
| bob1029 wrote:
| The model can call a copy of itself as a tool (i.e., we
| maintain actual stack frames in the hosting layer).
| Explicit tools are made available: Call(prompt) &
| Return(result).
|
| The user's conversation happens at level 0. Any actual tool
| use is only permitted at stack depths > 0. When the model
| calls the Return tool at stack depth 0 we end that logical
| turn of conversation and the argument to the tool is
| presented to the user. The user can then continue the
| conversation if desired with all prior top level
| conversation available in-scope.
|
| It's effectively the exact same experience as ChatGPT, but
| each time the user types a message an entire depth-first
| search process kicks off that can take several minutes to
| complete each time.
| sho_hn wrote:
| Same for me, cf. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47680123
| dweekly wrote:
| GPT 5.4 is the surly physics PhD post-doc who slowly and
| angrily sits in a basement to write brilliant, undocumented,
| uncommented code that encapsulates a breakthrough algorithm.
|
| Opus 4.6 is the L5 new hire SWE keen to prove their chops and
| quickly turn out totally reasonable code with putatively
| defensible reasons for doing it that way (that are sometimes
| tragically wrong) and then catch an after-work yoga class with
| you.
| simianwords wrote:
| GPT is also cautious and Defensive but opus is agreeable.
| fragmede wrote:
| > and then catch an after-work yoga class with you.
|
| That's cute, but do you mean something concrete with this,
| aka are there some non-coding prompting you use it for that
| you're referring to with that or is it simply a throwaway
| line about L5 SWEs (at a FAANG).
|
| (FWIW, I find myself using ChatGPT for non-coding prompting
| for some reason, like random questions like if oil is
| fungible and not Claude, for some reason.)
| joncrane wrote:
| I think the point they are trying to make is the golden
| retriever vibe/energy you get from Claude gives "after work
| yoga."
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| It's an analogy about the "personalities" of the models.
|
| They are saying that Claude is more of a team player and
| conformist. It isn't really much deeper than that.
| pdntspa wrote:
| Who replies to you with fucking emoji brainrot
| ponector wrote:
| You are absolutely right!
| SunshineTheCat wrote:
| 1000%. I have been running claude's work through codex for
| about a week now and it's insane the number of mistakes it
| catches. Not really sure why I've been doing this, just
| interesting to watch I guess.
|
| Not to mention a billion times more usage than you get with
| claude, dollar for dollar.
| scrollop wrote:
| It's widely reported that opus has been greatly reduced for a
| number of weeks since Mythos was released internally
| postalcoder wrote:
| What I like most about gpt coding models is how predictable of
| a lever that thinking effort is.
|
| Xhigh will gather all the necessary context. low gathers the
| minimum necessary context.
|
| That doesn't work as well with me for Opus. Even at max effort
| it'll overlook files necessary to understanding
| implementations. It's really annoying when you point that out
| and you get hit with an"you're absolutely right".
|
| Codex isn't the greatest one shot horse in the race but, once
| you figure out how to harness it, it's hard to go back to other
| models.
| osti wrote:
| Yup I've mentioned this in another thread, I got gpt 5.4xhigh
| to improve the throughout of a very complex non typical CUDA
| kernel by 20x. This was through a combination of architecture
| changes and then do low level optimizations, it did the
| profiling all by itself. I was extremely impressed.
| thisisit wrote:
| My non scientific tests has been that GPT models follow the
| prompts literally. Every time I give it an example, it uses the
| example in literal sense instead of using it to enhance its
| understanding of the ask. This is a good thing if I want it to
| follow instructions but bad if I want it to be creative. I have
| to tell it that the examples I gave are just examples and not
| to be used in output. I feel comfortable using it when I have
| everything mapped out.
|
| Claude on the other hand can be creative. It understands that
| examples are for reference purposes only. But there are times
| it decides to off on a tangent on its own and decide not to
| follow instructions closely. I find it useful for bouncing off
| ideas or test something new,
|
| The other thing I notice is Claude has slightly better UI
| design sensibilities even if you don't give instructions. GPT
| on the other hand needs instructions otherwise every UI element
| will be so huge you need to double scroll to find buttons.
| veber-alex wrote:
| This is also what I noticed.
|
| GPT doesn't know how to get creative, you need to tell it
| exactly what to do and what code you want it to write.
|
| For Claude you can be more general and it will look up
| solutions for you outside of the scope you gave it.
|
| I presonaly prefer Claude.
| sixothree wrote:
| I think you might benefit from the "superpower" plugin. Add
| the word "brainstorm" before your prompt and it does a little
| bit better at figuring out how you want things.
| laacz wrote:
| They are actively exploiting the compute shortages of Anthropic.
| In our team we're pushing for more or less vanilla and
| portability, since the best harness today might not be the best
| one in 6 months.
| hackable_sand wrote:
| Can you guys remind me again why you're doing this?
| I_am_tiberius wrote:
| For me it's not the price. It's the fact that they obviously read
| my prompts and may even use a derived version of my data for
| training. As it's very clear in the meantime that SAMA lies most
| of the time, there's just no way I can trust this company in any
| way.
| asadm wrote:
| are your prompts that important that you would not use SOTA
| models just to protect them?
|
| For me, they are just a means to an end and disposable.
| Toutouxc wrote:
| So.. would you mind releasing all your code on GitHub?
| disiplus wrote:
| It looks like its called prolite.
|
| https://snipboard.io/jmGKfM.jpg
| koolba wrote:
| Does this give you something different than the $20/mo plan when
| using codex?
| Tiberium wrote:
| Yes, it's 5x more usage than Plus, and with the current
| promotions you actually get 10x more usage than Plus on the
| $100 plan until May 31st.
|
| Same for the $200 plan, it's still 2x its normal usage until
| that date.
| bossyTeacher wrote:
| It really feels like LLMs will mostly become tools for tech
| workers rather than the kind of civilization-level transformation
| sama has been peddling. Every single comment here seems to
| confirm the above.
| wolttam wrote:
| This is kind of the goldilocks zone for LLMs right now.
|
| I wouldn't mistake this for any kind of capability plateau.
| There is a massive push towards making transformers the engine
| of humanoid (and other kinds of) robotics, we just haven't
| reached the hype moment for those yet.
| bossyTeacher wrote:
| > I wouldn't mistake this for any kind of capability plateau.
| There is a massive push towards making transformers the
| engine of humanoid (and other kinds of) robotics, we just
| haven't reached the hype moment for those yet.
|
| Problem is that the fuel to get this train going relies on
| investors money. Investors aren't going to be happy with the
| quote I took from your message.
|
| And that's the real bet really, can the industry turn the
| spark into fire before the investor money runs out?
| wolttam wrote:
| Development towards those goals will continue with or
| without massive investor capital, see Google's involvement
| with Boston Dynamics.
|
| And plenty of very wealthy folks see the writing on the
| wall wrt robotics.
| dude250711 wrote:
| I have heard a CTO had a major success building a side project
| over a weekend.
| bossyTeacher wrote:
| Is that CTO in the room with us?
| azmz wrote:
| The missing piece isn't smarter models, it's making them usable
| for normal people. OpenClaw proved there's massive demand for
| AI agents but the setup and maintenance is brutal. We built
| Atmita (https://atmita.com) from scratch, not based on
| OpenClaw, cloud-native so there's nothing to install. It can
| hit any REST API directly, integrates with 800+ services out of
| the box, has a built-in browser, runs scheduled tasks in the
| background, and has built-in approval controls. All through a
| chat interface anyone can use.
| randomNumber7 wrote:
| > Every single comment here seems to confirm the above.
|
| The population on Hacker News heavily skewed towards tech
| workers so I wouldn't draw a conclusion from that.
| jedisct1 wrote:
| Awesome news.
|
| And that includes usage of the API with any agent without risking
| being banned. OpenAI is also very supportive of open source
| software.
|
| I'm using GPT-5.4 with Swival (https://swival.dev) for a while,
| alongside local models, and it's absolutely fantastic.
| mrdependable wrote:
| It's interesting seeing all the ChatGPT users in this thread,
| knowing what we know about OpenAI. Either they don't care about
| what OpenAI does, don't know their reputation, or feel like their
| use is too insignificant to matter.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| What has the tech industry ever resisted on moral or
| reputational grounds?
| sonofhans wrote:
| This is sarcastically-stated but an excellent point, and an
| honest answer will come up with a vanishingly small list. We
| geeks may think we care about Important Things, but our
| industry cares for nothing but money and power -- morality is
| a hindrance to the accumulation of those.
| pdntspa wrote:
| Worse, they exploit our curiosity and open-mindedness to
| build their empires for them. Which we willingly do because
| cool shiny shit.
|
| Nerd-sniping as a weapon of oppression
| Throaway199999 wrote:
| llm made this post?
| NewsaHackO wrote:
| Because of the em-dash? Unfortunately, some writing
| hipsters created this "uh actually we were writing
| emdashes first, it's dramatic increase of use since llm
| proliferation in the 2020s shouldn't mean we can't use
| it!" movement. This has lead to purposeful use of
| emdashes to bait people to call them lllms. You can tell
| because the spaces around it most likely is because they
| had to copy and paste it from somewhere else as they
| (like most humans on non macs) don't actually know how to
| write an emdash otherwise.
| recursive wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co4rRptTdQI
| abound wrote:
| One example I can think of is Google + Project Maven [1],
| where Google was partnering with the DoD but "withdrew in
| 2018 after internal protests". Though they've since partnered
| with the DoD on other initiatives [2].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Maven
|
| [2] https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-
| dep...
| MattGaiser wrote:
| That is probably the most notable example and in the end,
| those few still lost.
| burnte wrote:
| Maybe it's time to start.
| somenameforme wrote:
| I assume in any sort of thread on a topic like this there is
| going to be inorganic activity. These companies are all
| fighting rather hard to try to gain marketshare, potentially
| worth $trillions, with a product fully capable of producing
| endless reasonably compelling content to populate an account, a
| website, or any other basic proof of identity one might ever
| want.
|
| It's probably never been the case that plurality of views meant
| anything since online is a bubble to begin with, filtered by
| endless biases wherever we happen to be reading, making it an
| even more fringe bubble, but the advent of AI has pushed it all
| over the edge to the point that perceived pluralities are just
| completely and utterly meaningless. Somewhat depressing for a
| one who enjoys online chat as a pasttime, but it's the reality
| of the world now.
| rs_rs_rs_rs_rs wrote:
| Yeah yeah yeah, everyone's a bot expect you with all the
| right opinions...
| Barbing wrote:
| hehe :)
|
| What's a good way to think about this? Because it does
| cross my mind about the billions of dollars at play - at
| the same time, I'm not a pessimist. I think my middle
| ground is kind of just the usual, taking things with a
| grain of salt. I mean, I chose to reply to this comment in
| good faith it's human to human, commenter to
| unpaid/unaffiliated commenter.
|
| I hope I keep that faith. I hope our billions of neighbors
| on the web enable me to keep that faith over the coming
| years. Definitely uncertain about the future of the web but
| want to love it like I've loved it 1990s-today. (Guess I
| should volunteer w/the EFF while job hunting, try for for-
| purpose jobs...)
| jmull wrote:
| I don't know why you dismiss it. There is plenty of
| astroturfing here, bots and otherwise.
|
| I believe the rule around here is to not assume everyone
| who disagrees with you or has opinions you don't understand
| is a shill. Perhaps there's a bit of that in the post you
| replied to, but to me seems mostly about mourning the loss
| of quality conversations online.
|
| Gotta say, I agree. Not that things were ever great, but
| it's really in the crapper now.
| rs_rs_rs_rs_rs wrote:
| What's with the holier-than-thou attitude? Why do you think
| you're better than someone using chatgpt?
| Morromist wrote:
| If an AI company has done unethical things do you think it is
| inappropriate to discuss that? Take Grok: among other things
| it created sexualized images of underaged women without their
| consent, not by accident but as a feature. Is that just
| something you want to ignore? In response the people in
| charge merely restricted the feature to paid subscribers
| instead of removing it.
|
| Do you think people who mention grok creating CSAM is a
| holier-than-thou attitude? Do you not think the people who
| ignore that are worse than other people?
| ThalesX wrote:
| I for one am appalled at TCP/IP because it facilitates so
| much unethical behavior. I of course am holier than thou
| because I do not ignore this and am a voice that raises
| awareness. I shall not be silenced!
| user34283 wrote:
| I don't see a comment in this thread concretely discussing
| said unethical things.
|
| Not sure why you felt the need to switch the topic to Grok.
| About its nudification incident, it seems a bit far
| stretched to say that malicious actors bypassing its safety
| controls was not an accident.
|
| Initially, the image features were restricted to paying
| subscribers to prevent abuse by anonymous actors; this
| obviously happened while they were tightening safety
| controls to stop abuse.
|
| If you're going to bring up that old topic, at least try to
| get the facts straight.
| Morromist wrote:
| I switched to grok because its a very cut and dry case of
| an ai company having poor ethics.
|
| To me it seems a LOT of a stretch to think that the
| people behind grok belived their safty controls worked,
| but you can belive that if you wish. Deepfakes of non-
| consenting adults were trending on X all the time, elon
| even appears to have shared them himself, which is pretty
| bad even if they're all just adults, and I'm sure you
| belive that they belived the AI could tell the difference
| between an underage person and an adult perfectly,
| although it seems clear they didn't test it very much.
| simianwords wrote:
| People love to roleplay as activists because it gives their
| life some meaning and illusion of control
| archagon wrote:
| And people love to roleplay as nihilists because it means
| they don't have to be responsible for anything.
| Devasta wrote:
| The difference between Silicon Valley and Wall Street is that
| Wall Street knows they are lying when they justify the awful
| things they do in the name of enriching themselves.
| mootothemax wrote:
| For what it's worth, I cancelled my ChatGPT subscription, and
| every time I try debugging a Linux system issue, I feel sad
| that Claude is sooooooo confidently bad at it.
|
| Claude is noticeably poor for my use case on this particular
| issue. That said, I imagine I'm not alone in refusing to
| continue paying OpenAI. We're in for a wild ride.
| randomNumber7 wrote:
| Do you know game theory? If you look at it through this
| perspective this doesn't sound like a good strategy.
|
| Basically the classical prisoner dilemma. The other devs with
| less moral can then outperform you.
|
| It could be a valid strategy if you can increase your
| crediblity with this relinquishment.
| kakacik wrote:
| Life is more than just empty status games and money
| hoarding at (almost) all cost. In fact, a good life lived
| well (TM) is anything but that.
|
| But I write this on mostly US forum full of faangs and
| similar so i dont expect strong agreement.
| jemmyw wrote:
| A lot of folks here will be startup types though, and
| while there is the idea that you'll make it big, I think
| day to day people work at startups for the satisfaction.
| randomNumber7 wrote:
| Someone who is never rational is equally bad as someone
| who claims there is nothing else in humans.
| mootothemax wrote:
| > Do you know game theory?
|
| Never heard of it. The food there good?
|
| > The other devs with less moral can then outperform you.
|
| I long for the days where it's only my moral compass
| holding me back.
| burnte wrote:
| If Sam Altman told me what time it was I'd check my watch and
| probably still not believe him.
| monkeyisland wrote:
| Could you spell it out? I pay a $20/m OpenAI subscription and I
| haven't read the reasons why I might want to stop.
| sourcecodeplz wrote:
| I like that they kept limited access to Codex even on free tier.
|
| LE: Someone said this is how the tiers are now counted:
|
| "Essentially if old plus is 1x then new limits are: Plus - 0.3x
| Pro $100 - 1.5x Pro $200 - 6x (unchanged)"
| bottlepalm wrote:
| Are you allowed to run your own autonomous agents with it outside
| of Codex, like OpenClaw and others?
| christkv wrote:
| I wish these plans had burst mode where I could set default plan
| size and max plan size and just scale up for a month
| automatically if needed but automatically drop back to my default
| plan at the next billing cycle
| yoniknak wrote:
| I was going to say they have that, but it looks like they only
| have that for teams, not individuals:
| https://openai.com/index/codex-flexible-pricing-for-teams/
| d3rockk wrote:
| Now they just need every iPhone owner on the planet to subscribe,
| and this AI bubble will officially be unpoppable!
| yoniknak wrote:
| I've used both a fair amount, and for actual coding work I still
| prefer Codex over Opus.
| daft_pink wrote:
| It says 5x or 20x more usage, so does that mean they have copied
| clause and have a 5x for 100 and 20x for 200?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-04-09 23:01 UTC)